Wednesday, December 30, 2015

Social Justice convergence in science fiction

My recommended lesbian romance SFF list, if anyone cares, now includes listings for 46 authors with books I have rated Good or better, and mentions about ~70 of their books total that have Good or better ratings. I’ve also tried to organize it a little better by category (True Romance, Major Romantic Elements, Minor Romantic Elements, etc.), since quite a few of the books I was listing were getting a little far from what is usually thought of as Romance.

Entries for authors I’ve added since the original list was made include ones for works I’ve read by Elizabeth Bear (Dust), Seth Dickinson (The Traitor Baru Cormorant), Daryl Gregory (Afterparty), Jacqueline Koyanagi (Ascension), Kirsty Logan (The Gracekeepers), Cherie Priest (Maplecroft), Ali Smith (How To Be Both), and Scott Westerfeld (Afterworlds). An unusual number of male authors among the new ones (3/8), since the list as a whole is more like 10/46 for that (which comes to about 1.7/8).

I’ve wondered if I should revise my rating system, since it’s idiosyncratic and an extra star would need to be added to just about everything to make it the equivalent I would probably put on Amazon or Goodreads or something. Literally the only books I have rated at 5 stars right now are Slow River by Nicola Griffith and The Child Garden by Geoff Ryman. (Authors who have books I rated at 4 stars and above include the inimitable Heather Rose Jones, as well as L-J Baker, Jacqueline Carey, Candas Jane Dorsey, Max Gladstone, Daryl Gregory, Rachel Hartman, Kameron Hurley, Laura Lam, Laurie J. Marks, Richard Morgan, Jennifer Pelland, Philip Reeve, Ali Smith, Catherynne Valente, and Elisabeth Vonarburg, so, you know, a pretty powerful bunch there.)

29 comments:

There's no getting past this. I've never read an SFF story for the sake of the straight romance element, nor looking for such an element. Why would I? Why would anyone? Sure, some of them have it, some of them don't. Who gives a flying monkey's?

Nah. The more I think about it, the more likely it is that this nonsense will evolve as an obscure category of literature that no one but a miniscule number of SJW lezbots will pay any attention to. Market forces will continue to ensure that scifi as traditionally enjoyed will carry on as always.

I will say that Maplecroft wasn't that bad. The lesbian romance certainly wasn't the focus, nor was it distracting, and it did have historical precedence (Lizzie Borden was rumored to be a lesbian), but it was more of a decent homage to Lovecraft. Better than the monstrosity that was nominated for a Hugo last time.

I'm sincerely baffled by the outrage. This isn't my cup of tea, either, but why would anyone have a problem with this? Because there are novels being published that don't interest you? And how is "social justice" related?

"Nah. The more I think about it, the more likely it is that this nonsense will evolve as an obscure category of literature that no one but a miniscule number of SJW lezbots will pay any attention to. Market forces will continue to ensure that scifi as traditionally enjoyed will carry on as always"

Right. Those magical and marvelous Market Forces will fix this. Feminist and SJW influence on SF, literature in general, publishing, law, government, the academy over the past forty years . . . miniscule. Nothing to see here folks just go on home and these problems will self-resolve . . . with The Market's help. Whew thank Goddess for The Market! And as you point out, SF is strong and traditional just like it was in, say, 1970.

@Violet - because GIRLS RUIN EVERYTHING. Seriously though - the problem is that SJWs act like SFF "needs" more female action heroes and more female authors and basically a lot more women who preferably kick butt and look intelligent (I probably mean hot) while doing so. Only SFF doesn't need these things. If a woman wants to write SFF lite for women that's one thing. The Vorkosigan series probably falls in that category. But the SFF genre doesn't "need" women, and women righting SFF lite shouldn't expect to be taken seriously or respected or given awards by people actually doing the heavy lifting in the genre. That's not to knock women writers either. I'm sure plenty of men here would stigmatize my reading as fluffy and silly, but since most of it actually does encourage me to love my family and take care of them..... well, they can have their space blasters and leave me my domestic affairs :)

I'm quite sure Tor and others will give authors advances for more such works.Adding meaning to "perverse incentives".Worse, I remember Milo's article on domestic abuse among lesbians.

But I think I now understand the quoted section in the post, harking back to Chesterton. Since I'm outside of the freak show, the insane asylum in the blue locales, I can properly identify the passage as the ravings of some insane or delusional female patient who belongs in an asylum. Culture has decayed to the point that large swaths ARE the asylum and the patients happily praise and laud the rants and ravings of fellow patients.

Did I miss something? The first book on the list, Dust, is a bland paint by numbers post-apoc book book featuring a cheap Katniss knockoff. I don't recall any lesbian romance in it. Was it written by a lesbian or something?

Maybe I have heard of Elizabeth Bear, but probably getting that feeling because the name is pretty generic. The rest? Not one of them after reading sci-fi for 37 years. Admittedly with the dying off of store front book emporiums I don't walk the aisles looking for something new any more (just realized it has been two years since I have been in a B&N. The nearest one is horribly designed in a mall. It is on two floors and you have to leave the store to change floors). Of course, it may have been the Romance angle of the books that I saw in the sci-fi section then that caused the disinterest. I do recall way to many vampire and were-seal books that appeared to belong in horror or romance and not sci-fi.

The most prominent streaming shows on Netflix are overt lesbian propaganda.

Unless legions of divorced women spend all their time reading about or watching lipstick lesbians muff-dive, any publicly traded corporation hanging it's hat on this crap will soon be the short of the Millennium.

In truth there are few "badass" heroines who are believable in any medium. Thats what makes them notable and stand out. Writing one properly so that her actions seem natural rather than unnatural takes crafting a world and circumstances that allow for believabily. Most SJW's seem to write only one thing: here's my heroine look at all the masculine heroic things she does without taking into account her femininty.

When i think of a natural heroine I often think of Robing Mckinley's works, particularly "Hero and the Crown" and its sequel the "the Blue Sword".

The Heroines have goals but also make mistakes and strive to better themselves through training, often obsessive training, without sacrificing their femininty. They also have a goal after the adventure is done and a loyalty to something greater in than themselves that requires sacrifice.

Their loyalty to their kingdom leads them to due their duty as befitting their station and continuing the royal blood line of Damar. That is arguably far more important than almost any adventuring that they do.